http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/63287/index.do 
Maass-Howard v. The Queen (MNR, CRA)[1] (October 7, 2013) is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/31004/index.do
Essentially the taxpayer was taxed on amounts withdrawn from her RRSP which were used to pay for medical expenses in Europe for services that were not available to her in Canada:
[13] The appellant asks the Court to relieve her of her tax obligation on the grounds of equity. She withdrew the funds to pay for medical services that should have been covered under Canada’s health plan. In so doing, she saved Canadian taxpayers the cost of her treatment, which was greater than the income tax on her RRSP withdrawal.
[14] It is well established that the courts do not have the power to make exceptions to the application of the law on the grounds of fairness, equity or undue hardship. I cannot vacate an assessment if it was made in conformity with the law. The law obliges me to dismiss the appeal although I do so with reluctance in light of the circumstances of the appellant’s case.
[15] I have also examined whether the appellant received full tax relief for the medical expenses that she paid. I conclude, on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, that she did.
[16] The appeal is dismissed without costs.
[From the Tax Court Judgment]
The Federal Court of Appeal found no reason to intervene with the Tax Court’s finding:
[2] We are mindful of the appellant’s particular circumstances and have considered her elaborate oral presentation and written submissions with this in mind. Nevertheless, we can detect no error in the decision reached by the Tax Court judge which would justify our intervention.
[1] 2013 FCA 234.